N00091:62
The mystery of Israel's salvation, explained and applied: or, A discourse concerning the general…The mystery of Israel's salvation, explained and applyed: or, A discourse concerning the general…
The mystery of Israel's salvation, explained and applied: or, A discourse concerning the general conversion of the Israelitish nation. Wherein is showed, 1. That the Twelve Tribes shall be saved. 2. When this is to be expected. 3. Why this must be. 4. What kind of salvation the Tribes of Israel shall partake of (viz.) a glorious, wonderful, spiritual, temporal salvation. : Being the substance of several sermons preached / by Increase Mather, M.A. teacher of a church in Boston in New England. ; [Ten lines of Scripture texts]The mystery of Israel's salvation, explained and applyed: or, A discourse concerning the general conversion of the Israelitish nation. Wherein is shewed, 1. That the Twelve Tribes shall be saved. 2. When this is to be expected. 3. Why this must be. 4. What kind of salvetion the Tribes of Israel shall partake of (viz.) a glorious, wonderful, spiritual, temporal salvation. : Being the substance of several sermons preached / by Increase Mather, M.A. teacher of a church in Boston in New England. ; [Ten lines of Scripture texts]
London: printed for John Allen, 1669
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Again it swayeth something with me when I consider that the Chiliad was not denied until Antichrist began to reign, and other opinions far worse than that came in the room of it. And it sticketh more with me, that the first opposers of Chiliasm were feign to deny the divine Apostolical Authority (d)of the Apocalypse, and of the (†)second Epistle of Peter. In those days they acknowledged that indeed the Author of the Book of the Revelation was a Chiliast, and so was the writer of the second Epistle of Peter, but therefore they said (that so they might be sure to avoid Chiliasm) that neither that Epistle of Pe•er, nor the Apocalypse, were Canonical Scripture. […] were desperate shifts. And it is not nothing with me, that those learned Worthies who wholly deny the Millenary notion, charge them with a tincture of (e)Chiliasm, who maintain that the Jews shall be repossessed ⟨image ?⟩of the Land of their Fathers, and that they shall have an external temporal glory and happiness above other people; or, that there will a time come when the Churches shall for a thousand years be freed from persecution. Now all these notions pass for current amongst us. And therefore i• indeed it be so that they savour of Chiliasm, let those that believe them judge of what nature the notion of the Chiliad is, that they who oppose it find a necessity […] deny those other with us received notions.
Again it swayeth something with me when I consider that the Chiliad was not denyed until Antichrist began to reign, and other opinions far worse than that came in the room of it. And it sticketh more with me, that the first opposers of Chiliasm were faign to deny the divine Apostolical Authority (d)of the Apocalyps, and of the (†)second Epistle of Peter. In those days they acknowledged that indeed the Author of the Book of the Revelaton was a Chiliast, and so was the writer of the second Epistle of Peter, but therefore they said (that so they might be sure to avoid Chiliasm) that neither that Epistle of Peer, nor the Apocalyps, were Canonical Scripture. were desperate shifts. And it is not nothing with me, that those learned Worthies who wholly deny the Millenary notion, charge them with a tincture of